The
end of the year is a good time to reflect on subjects we deem of particular
importance. Education, along with stability at home, is perhaps the most
critical requirement for future success. I want to offer my own experience and
to provide some additional thoughts. In public schools, administrators too
often put students and parents second to demands of unions. They are, for example,
reluctant to approve options available to the well-off. Vouchers and charter
schools are inimical to their interests. In colleges and universities,
political correctness has driven out the concept of liberalness – the
importance to confront differing opinions. Walter Lippman once wrote: “When
genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work as it is meant to
work.” With ten grandchildren in school, education, especially its promises, is
close to my heart.

Too
often, our high schools are considered successful if 80% of their students
graduate on time and matriculate. The fact that many seniors may be illiterate
and/or innumerate seems of little concern. Any number of colleges and
universities – for profit as well as not-for-profit – have sprung up to
accommodate the growing supply of students, most of whom must borrow the cost
of tuition, and many of whom are unqualified. They have been told that a
college degree – not education – is critical to success.

What
has been lost in this mechanical process of sloppy manufacturing has been
learning how to think. Too often, high school students graduate in need of
remedial training. College seniors, in turn, graduate unprepared for the real
world. I recognize that condemnation is broad; it ignores hundreds of good
schools – public and private – and tens of thousands of even better teachers.
But, as a generalization it stands; for learning should be pleasurable, solid
and provocative.

I
am sensitive to this issue because of my own experience. While I grew up in an
educated household – my father, like his father and both his grandfathers, were
alumni of Harvard – I never took advantage of the opportunities offered …or I
did not until I was twenty-one, after I met the woman who became my wife. I
blame only myself. I did have a few teachers in school and in college who tried
to reach an unreachable boy. I remember those few fondly, and some of what they
taught did stick, in spite of my best efforts to remain impervious to their
attempts.

As
a youngster, I liked to read. I loved Greek and Roman mythology, and read the
Scribner classics. I read and enjoyed books of less importance, like the Hardy
Boy series. By the age of fourteen, I had read Carl Sandburg’s two volume
biography of Abraham Lincoln, and memorized the Gettysburg Address. About the
same age, I became the youngest member of the high school debating team. But
around that time I became rebellious; so when I went off to boarding school – WillistonAcademy
in East Hampton, MA – I was in no mood to study, or behave as
I should.

After
barely graduating, I scraped my way into the University of New Hampshire.
I recall a professor of algebra handing back an exam, telling me it was the
lowest mark he had ever given, but also noting that I had scored one of the
highest marks ever recorded on the university’s math entrance exam. After two
years of dissipated living, I left. I worked, met Caroline, joined the army and
returned to college. With less than a year to go in college, Caroline and I
married.

Looking
back at those pre-Caroline years, I regret not having had a positive
interaction with teachers and professors. But my mishaps provided lessons.
First, my wife and I worked to ensure our children would have positive school
experiences, which they did. Second, I established a personal reading
curriculum. Generally, I read about 35 books a year, divided roughly equally
between fiction and nonfiction. For the past fifteen years, I have maintained a
record of the books I have read. I collect and read a fair amount of P.G.
Wodehouse and it is easy to forget titles read. Additionally, the list allows
me to more easily recall what I have read and which books I enjoyed most. In
terms of fiction, besides Wodehouse and my daughter-in-law Beatriz’s novels, I
prefer mysteries and classics, like Dickens, Anthony Trollope, Jane Austen,
Edith Wharton and Willa Cather. Character studies in great literature provide
clues to human behavioral responses. Biographies and history help us understand
the manifestations of that behavior.

Writing
‘Thoughts of the Day’ requires staying abreast of current events. Most days I
read six papers, as well as numerous publications and essays sent me. While I
am not a fan of the editorial page of the New York Times, it is like perusing
enemy dispatches as a friend put it. We should know what the other side thinks.
A reason we are polarized is because most people tend to read and watch only
that which supports their beliefs. And college graduates tend to mimic what
they have been taught in our “liberal” universities, institutions where open
forums have become rare.

A
baby is born with an empty brain, but with an insatiable appetite for learning.
Watching my grandchildren grow from infancy to childhood to early teens, I have
been amazed at how fast they learn and how rapacious is their desire. The role
of a teacher is to keep inquisitiveness alive. The role of the school is to
support teachers. There are few jobs more critical than that of the one charged
with encouraging and channeling curiosity, in a bid to satisfy the quest for
knowledge. As children get older, other interests intercede and distractions
appear. Students must understand the consequences of decisions. Einstein said,
“Education is…the training of the mind to think.”

Learning
is fun and exciting. That flame should never be doused. It is incumbent on all
of us to continue our own education; to inspire our youth; to inculcate the
desire to learn; to question; to think; to seek answers, even where none may be
found. In spite of my criticism of our educational system and despite how
poorly our students do in international competition, no other country comes
close to ours in terms of creativity and innovation. Something is working.

It
is telling that one of the more successful TV series is called “How It’s Made.”
Over the past dozen years this Canadian company has documented the process
behind 1,200 products, from pantyhose to race-car engines. Young people want to
learn. School administrators could learn something from watching this program.
Education should encourage aspirations and allow us to think independently. As
we roll into 2015, our New Year’s resolutions should include: don’t stop
learning and don’t stop thinking!

Monday, December 22, 2014

“The
Obama administration is ushering in a transformational era for millions of
Cubans who had suffered as a result of more than fifty years of hostility
between the two nations;” so opined the New York Times last Thursday in
applauding Mr. Obama’s “historic move on Cuba.” Certainly, talking is better
than not, and the benefits of trade tend to be mutual, but I had no idea that
the people of the United
States were responsible for the repressive
conditions under which most Cubans live. I, obviously naively, had always
thought that the absence of the rule of law, the suppression of free speech,
the poverty, the jailing of dissidents had something to with the communist
government the Castro brothers had imposed on their Country fifty years ago. The
opinion leaders of the Times apparently believe differently. We Americans,
according to them, share in the blame.

Mr.
Obama emphasized that point when he mistakenly inferred that the United States had been a colonizer of Cuba, rather
than its liberator in the Spanish-American War. He spoke on Thursday, with
words directed at the Cuban people: “Others have seen us as a former colonizer,
intent on controlling your future. Let us leave behind the legacy of both
colonization and communism.” While it is true that the Cuban Constitution,
until the early 1930s, included an “intervention” clause,” Cuba was never colonized by the United States.
It was true, though, that American companies like United Fruit operated in Cuba, with advantages accruing to shareholders
at the expense of Cuban employees, and the Mafia, an American institution, made
Havana an open
city in the post-World War II era. So, why does Mr. Obama twist and exaggerate
history for his own purposes? Why does mainstream media not call him out?

Headlines
in the media and comments from some in the columnists have said that our
isolating of Cuba
has not worked. It is time, they said, to try something new. I agree, it is
time to try something new. Communism has not worked. Will opening the doors to
American tourists and American businessmen and women rid the country of its
legacy of dictatorial suppression? I don’t know. It seems doubtful. But I
agree, why not try? Will business or individuals invest? I suspect not, or at
least not in any meaningful way, absent the rule of law. Why not try democracy
and give all Cubans the right to own property and permit them to speak freely?
Why not let the people freely elect their leaders? If Raúl Castro is to be
believed change may be slow in coming. On Saturday, he gave a wide-ranging
speech. “We won the war,” he declared. David defeated Goliath is the way he put
it. He said the changes need to be gradual to create a system of “prosperous
and sustainable communism.”

Cuba has not been isolated in the world. It is not, as
President Obama alleged at last Friday’s news conference, “hermetically
sealed.” It has relations with 160 nations, and it provides civilian assistance
workers, mainly medical, to more than 20 nations. Nevertheless, trade with
nations like Canada, Germany and Spain,
not to mention mentoring nations, like China,
Russia and Venezuela, have
done nothing to improve the lives of the people. Cuba is a member of the united
Nations and, believe it or not, a lead country on the United Nations Human
Rights Council, which says more about the United Nations than Cuba. Yet, the
government persecutes those who disagree. It is a persistent violator of human
rights. It sponsors terrorism and foments anti-Americanism across Latin America.

At
Friday’s news conference, Mr. Obama said, “I want to work with this new
Congress to get things done.” Yet, the President missed an opportunity to both
work with Congress and improve his chances of permanently changing America’s policies toward Cuba. Why did
he not seek to co-opt the three U.S.
Senators of Cuban heritage, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted
Cruz (R-TX)? Why did he not consult the four Representatives of Cuban heritage
in the House – two Democrats and two Republicans? I suspect the answer is that
his ego would not let him share the stage. Yet, if he had, he might very well
of helped restore civility and bi-partisanship to Washington,
and he would have ensured the smooth passage of any new legislation regarding Cuba. Most
former Presidents would have done so.

Instead,
it was Pope Francis who played a key role, perhaps hoping to reprise the part
played by Pope John Paul II in helping to bring down the Iron Curtain. Cuba, once a Catholic nation, has been on the Vatican’s radar
since Fidel Castro took over. Their five-decade failure to exorcise the atheism
of Cuban leaders has never diminished their desire to do so. Pope Francis, by
all accounts, is a good and kindly man, but I find it troubling that the
spiritual leader of Roman Catholics recently chose not to meet the Tibetan
spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Unlike Mr. Obama who did meet with the Dalai
Lama at the White House, Pope Francis seemed to be concerned he would offend China’s
communist leaders.

In
this season of Christmas, it is worth considering a recent study by CornellUniversity, which compared happiness
derived from gifts of a material nature to those they called experiential – the
gift of an experience – a dinner out, theater tickets or a trip. They found the
latter provided greater happiness. Perhaps that is what Mr. Obama had in mind
during this Pentecostal season. The Castro’s, since seizing control in 1959, have
argued that the poverty their people endure is due to the monster that is the United States.
Raúl Castro accepted Mr. Obama’s gift and declared victory. There is, however,
a catch. If life for Cubans does not improve, it will be harder to blame the Goliath
to their north. If life does improve, will they credit their northern neighbor?
I suspect we know the answer.

……………………………………………………………………………..

I
do hope your Holidays will be enjoyable, that you will be able to spend time
with family and friends, and I wish you the very best for a happy, healthy and
prosperous New Year!

Thursday, December 18, 2014

“Why,
sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” The
White Queen was responding to Alice’s
disbelief as to her alleged age. In today’s world, with its unfunded (or poorly
funded) pensions, we are asked by corporate CEOs, union leaders, politicians
and pension fund trustees to believe another impossible thing – that everything
is hunky-dory in the world of pension and health obligations to retirees. Additionally,
they seem blasé about the achievability of 8% per annum growth, when
calculating expected returns.

Nevertheless,
it is possible that a crack has appeared in that veneer. Congress may be
concerned. Buried in the spending bill just passed by Congress and signed by
the President was a provision that would permit benefit cuts for retirees in multi-employer
pension plans. It is true that multi-employer pension plans represent only a
small percentage of plans covered by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC),
but the news is welcome for anyone concerned with fiscal responsibility. There
are an estimated 1,400 multi-employer plans in the U.S., covering about 10 million
people. Such plans, which can be carried from one employer to another, are
common in industries such as construction, trucking and mining, where employees
are typically members of a local union that, in turn, is part of a national
one. The plans are jointly managed by unions and employers. The plans are
guaranteed by the PBGC, and therein lies the rub. The PBGC, in its annual
report, noted that its projected long-term deficit for multi-employer plans had
widened to $42 billion from $36 billion a year earlier, despite hefty returns
to stock and bond markets.

While
the provision will certainly be challenged by affected pensioners, it is also
possible that this may be a prelude to addressing all pension obligations, and acknowledging
that more realistic return assumptions must be used. Take, for example, Social
Security. It is common knowledge that, in its current form, it is not
sustainable. Thirty-one years ago, President Reagan and House Speaker Tip
O’Neill, in order to avert its insolvency, collaborated in getting the
retirement age raised gradually from 65 to 67. Today, if the President and
Congress were able to introduce means testing, change the calculation for CPI
and raise the retirement age from 67 to 70, the program would remain viable. If
they do not, it will not.

Politicians
express the Christmas spirit year round, in that they promise and give. But,
like the prodigal son, they express little concern about cost, and no one person
wants to be the Grinch. Nevertheless, there are moments when it feels that the
country is racing toward a concrete wall. Debt and obligations pile up, and the
only panacea Congress and the Administration (with a compliant Federal Reserve)
seem capable of is to keep interest rates as low as possible on our country’s
rapidly accruing debt, and to raise taxes – fees as they sometimes euphemistically
refer to them. It is a game that, left unto itself, will end badly.

We
are a consumer-driven economy. What we want, we want now. The concept of saving
is as dated as galoshes. It is an Alfred E. Neuman, “What, me worry?” attitude
that ignores an on-rushing future. One consequence of our behavior is a lack of
preparedness for retirement.

But
all that has begun to change. The private sector, with its eye necessarily on
the bottom line, has moved away from defined benefit plans toward defined
contribution plans, thereby putting much of the onus on the individual. Government
and union plans have been slow to adopt. But they will have to. The money is
not there. Responsibility for saving toward retirement will increasingly fall
on the individual, a responsibility largely avoided for the last seventy years.

There
are those who feel the average person is incapable of doing so. I disagree, but
I also understand that the transition will be difficult. It will take time. It
must include provisions to assist in savings, and, concomitantly to reduce incentives
to consume. IRAs and 401Ks are a good first step, but these programs will have
to be expanded. We have 10,000 people reaching retirement age every day. In
terms of Social Security, the number of workers per retiree dropped from
forty-one to four between 1945 and 1965. Today, it is under three. By 2030, it
is projected to be two. The future is here. While I feel badly for the deceived
and affected workers in multi-employer plans, it is good that Congress belatedly
recognized the problem and has attempted to address it.

A
consequence of government divided by partisanship has been a rise in populism. Populism
is manifested on the Right with the Tea Party and with Senators like Paul Rand
and Ted Cruz. On the Left, it is embedded with President Obama, and now Senator
Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, the latter as its newest standard bearer. On
both sides, individuals have stirred populist passions, but I suspect they are
whistling in the dark. When it comes to selecting the next President, it is my
guess that the people will decide on a governor. Governors do not get the
national press of bloviating Senators, but they have had experience in actually
running things. And voters – listen up, Jonathon Gruber – are not stupid.

This
may be only a Panglossian fantasy on my part, but I believe it likely that the
new, Republican-dominated Senate will prove to be more effective and less
partisan than that run by Harry Reid. (Admittedly, that is a low bar.) For the
last several years unilateralism, in terms of major legislation is concerned,
has prevailed. That never works, no matter the ideals such legislation may
reflect. Democracy is messy. Making laws, as Bismarck once noted, is like making sausage.
The process belies the result. Partisanship is fine on the fringes, as it keeps
everyone alert and honest. Those like Senators Warren and Cruz serve a purpose,
but you wouldn’t want one in command of the ship. We have had that experience
these last six years, with a Leftist, uncompromising, partisan President who
had no prior executive experience. We have lived the consequences. My guess is
that the people, in 2016, will choose someone with governing experience.

It
is too soon to know if the inclusion, in the recently enacted spending bill, of
the provision that forces leaders and constituents to face up to the peril of
promises that can never be fulfilled. But it seems to this observer that such
inclusion may signal a change for the
better. We shall see.

Monday, December 15, 2014

War
is never pretty. In fact, as General Sherman (who would have known) once
declared, it was Hell. In the history of the 87th Regiment of the 10th
Mountain Division, the regiment in which my father served in World War II,
Captain George F. Earle wrote that after Nazis pretended to surrender and then
killed their intended captors, “Company C (my father’s company) took no further
Prisoners of War.”

In
an act of war on September 11, 2001, a group of nineteen Islamic terrorists
killed three thousand people in three strikes against the U.S. Further
attacks were widely expected. Americans responded, including the CIA, which was
charged with interrogating captured enemies to gather intelligence on what else
was being planned. Senator Diane Feinstein said at the time, “We have to do
some things that historically we have not wanted to do, to protect ourselves.”
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid sheik Mohammed was captured, and it was suggested
turning him over to nations known to use torture, vice-chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller replied: “I wouldn’t take
anything off the table where he is concerned.”

Politics
is not pretty either. The report that Senator Feinstein released last week was
partisan – it was written by the Democrat staff of the Intelligence Committee,
with no input from the Republican staff. It was based on the premise that the
CIA had acted immorally. The data collected and the arguments used were phrased
to fit its predetermined conclusion. The report did not provide context, in
that it omitted the fear that permeated the country in the weeks and months
following the attack. It concluded, in contradiction with others, that
“torture” did not produce any actionable intelligence. The report did not
acknowledge that the CIA, and other agencies, had been successful, in that the
subsequent thirteen years have been absent any more mass domestic attacks. Its
timing was auspicious. It was released after the election and shortly before
Ms. Feinstein will have to relinquish her leadership position on the Senate
Intelligence Committee. It was also released on the same day Jonathon Gruber –
the MIT professor who believes most Americans are stupid – testified on Capital
Hill. While the investigators sifted through six million documents, they
neither conducted interviews with alleged perpetrators, nor did they speak with
Directors of the CIA or with any Deputy Directors. They claimed they could not;
they said the Justice Department was conducting its own review, which was
false, as the Justice Department, in 2012, had exonerated all those accused.
Most disturbing, according to former Democrat Senator Bob Kerrey, the report
contained no recommendations. And, it cost taxpayers $40 million.

Historical
revisionists are common, especially among the political class who wish to be
remembered in ways favorable to themselves and unfavorable to their political
opponents. The report and its summary have been treated as Gospel by
Left-leaning media. But it is cloaked in a mantle of false sanctimony. It shows
the CIA as a rogue group who regularly tortured prisoners, lied to the
President and Congress about what they did, and accomplished nothing in terms
of preventing further attacks, or helping to capture or kill other al Qaeda
members. (A headline in the New York Times expressed that sentiment:
“Portraying a Broken Agency Devoted to a Failed Approach.) Like most reports
and bills emanating from Congress, this one, at 6000 pages, was designed not to
be read in its entirety.

The
report was political. The November elections were a setback to Democrats, who
see themselves as the responsible Party. Senators Schumer and Warren have since
split from the President on specific issues. Democrats are anxious to seize the
high moral ground. Senator Feinstein came to the microphones on Tuesday,
dripping with condescension and mad as Hell; she scandalized the Agency in a
manner reminiscent of Senator Frank Church’s committee forty years ago. It took
a generation for the Agency to refurbish its image after that witch hunt.
Whether Senator Feinstein’s fury was feigned or real, she claimed to have been
misled by the CIA. She said they operated illegally and lied to President Bush.
Her accusations have been denied, and her report only aggravated the partisan
divide.

Congress
is charged with oversight of the CIA. U.S. law requires the Central
Intelligence Agency to inform Congress of covert activities. The law allows the
briefings to be limited, in certain sensitive cases, to a “Gang of Eight.” The
latter consists of the four top congressional leaders, as well as the four
senior intelligence committee member. The CIA did just that in September 2002,
and did so regularly over the next few years. But the CIA cannot be totally
transparent. By definition, it operates in the murky world of spies, cloaks and
daggers. It must, if it is going to do its job. Were there rogue CIA employees
who took too much license? Were there a few who seemed to enjoy inflicting pain
on others? I am sure there were. But to declare that the CIA is the moral
equivalence of Iranians, North Koreans, Nazis, Communists, al Qaeda or ISIS is
to blaspheme an agency that has done a great deal to keep Americans safe.
Following the release of Senator Feinstein’s report, George H.W. Bush, who was
Director of the CIA in 1976-1977, was quoted: “[CIA employees] are among the
finest people serving in the U.S.
government – whose selfless and dangerous work, always behind the scenes, went
unheralded.”

Americais different from other nations. Torture
should be avoided, but semantics are important. The word “torture” should be
defined carefully. The Bush Administration was careful to get Justice
Department Authorization for the enhanced interrogation techniques they
employed. What the CIA did to captured al Qaeda terrorists may fit some
people’s definition of torture, but it is far different than that experienced
by those like Lieutenant Louis Zamperini at the hands of the Japanese during
World War II.

We
cannot and should not forget what happened on 9/11. Fear causes people to act
irrationally. Perhaps the soldiers in my father’s Company did act improperly
after the German’s deadly trick atop Mt.Belvedere in February,
1945. But when we judge them, it must be done in the context of the time. In
the aftermath of the smoldering ruins of the WorldTradeCenter,
a badly injured Pentagon, and the remains of United Airlines Flight 93
scattered across a field in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania people were scared.
It was a fear that permeated all Americans – the threat of an Anthrax attack,
the possibility of a similar attack on the West Coast. Was there some
over-reaction by the CIA when enemy combatants were captured? Almost assuredly
so. Were their reactions excusable? Perhaps not. Were they understandable?
Absolutely. Were they deserving of this partisan, scandalous report? Not at
all.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Racism
is the belief that innate differences among different races determine
individual outcomes. As a belief, it has been discredited. As practice it
violates an individual’s civil rights. Like prejudice, its persistence reflects
society’s moral turpitude.

Prejudice
can be defined as preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or
experience. It cannot be corrected through legislative actions. Prejudice is
cultural and usually ingrained. It comes in many flavors. There are xenophobes,
misogynists, anti-Semites and racists, among others. Such feelings are primarily
a function of ignorance, but they also reflect a culture that lacks empathy and
mutual respect. As a society, we need greater emphasis on family values. We
need parents, teachers and others in authority to set exemplary examples. The
banning of discrimination and the prosecuting of racists will not,
unfortunately, eliminate prejudice.

For
political purposes and personal gain, public figures and the media have inflamed
the anger following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson
and the alleged choke-hold death of Eric Garner on Staten
Island. The two cases were similar in that both involved black men
killed by white cops. Both accused men resisted arrest, a violation of the rule
of law. They were alike in that Grand Juries found no evidence to indict either
policeman. But the differences are marked. A video shows what appears to be an
unnecessary rough (and deadly) take-down of Mr. Garner. Mr. Brown apparently
attacked the arresting officer, while Mr. Garner resisted attempts to be
handcuffed, even though he had been arrested for the same misdemeanor before. (The
police cannot determine which laws to enforce, no matter how minor the
infractions may seem.)

While
laws banning discrimination have been enacted, there is no question that
prejudice and racism persist; though less overtly than fifty years ago. Tolerance
should be encouraged, but it cannot be mandated. It must be learned, as must
honor and fairness. Respect must be earned. All should be aspects of our
cultural makeup. These are values we inherit from our parents, and should be
integral parts of our school’s curriculum.

For
President Obama, this could have been a teachable moment. However, his
instinctive reaction was to see these tragedies as part of a larger pattern of
racism. The questions he should have addressed include: Why are 75% of black
babies born out of wedlock, when we know two-parent households are the best
tickets out of poverty and away from a life of crime? Why is the murder rate of
young black men (90% of whom are killed by other young black men) almost ten
times that of whites and Asians? Why have blacks, who make up 13% of the
nation’s population, been responsible for the deaths of 42% of all cops who
were killed in the line of duty? Mr. Obama should be focused on the issues that
have caused black crime to soar, especially black-on-black.

The
second lesson the President should emphasize is the importance of the rule of
law. No nation can exist without laws and without them being enforced. That
does not mean that all laws are fair, or just. But we cannot have individuals,
be they law-enforcement officers, the President or simply citizens, deciding
which laws should be obeyed and which should be ignored. That way leads to
anarchy. Similarly, while there are bad cops, most are brave, public servants
doing necessary and, at times, dangerous jobs. The President should explain
that it is not racist to enforce laws. Selling single cigarettes is a crime.
Should it be? That is not a question for the police. Certainly, owners of convenience
stores that sell tobacco do not like the selling of untaxed cigarettes outside
their shops. The State of New York
doesn’t like the illegal selling of cigarettes either. In 2011, the State collected
$1.7 billion in tobacco taxes. If a law is trivial or unjust, there are
legitimate ways of getting it changed.

In
the wake of the Civil Rights movement, many well intentioned legislators made
the conscious decision to compensate African-Americans for years of having had
to live under humiliating Jim Crow laws. But, in doing so, they unwittingly increased
dependency on the State, and they lowered cultural and moral standards. Welfare
programs had the unfortunate effect of encouraging out-of-wedlock births and
single-parenthood. A culture that emerged of political correctness and moral
relativism encouraged such behavior. Children born without fathers are at an
enormous disadvantage, yet people in authority don’t encourage marriage.
Universal values, like respect, honor and morality, have been abandoned in
favor of ones that promote the ego of the individual – Selfies characterize
this era.

The
concept of “broken windows” – a system that relies on personal responsibility
and which says that if small problems are addressed, larger ones are less
likely to form – has been abandoned by those like New York’s Mayor Bill de
Blasio, supposedly allies of African-Americans.

Besides
the breakdown in the family and in cultural standards, public schools are being
run more for the benefit of teachers and administrators than for students. This
is especially true in the nation’s poorest inner cities. Wealthy families have
the option to use private schools, which have proliferated in the last forty
years, while inner city children – the poor (and especially the black) – have
been consigned to failing schools. Even the option they once had – Catholic
schools – have largely disappeared, victims of unions that did not want the
competition. Charter schools and voucher programs have been vilified by
so-called liberals, because they do not have the backing of unions.

Mr.
Obama, as everyone knows, came to the White House with a unique opportunity to
improve attitudes toward race, but also to address those factors that have
caused blacks to lose ground economically – schools, the importance of the
family and the necessity of gaining self-respect through self-reliance. He has
not done so. Racism is more rampant and income gaps have widened. The victims
are those he professes to care for. It is the saddest legacy of his Presidency.

Years
ago, at the height of the civil rights movement, my paternal grandmother – a
wise woman who spent six years studying public health at MIT during the late
1890s – told me that racial prejudice would not be cured until we were all of
one color. As a committed believer in Darwin,
she felt certain such an event would happen, but it would take many
generations. A few years ago, I wrote an essay, “We Are All Kin.” It was based
on the mathematical certainty that we are all related. I concluded it: “It is
on the differences in political philosophies that our discourse should be
focused, not on the color of our skin, our gender, our religion, or the country
from which our ancestors hailed. After all, we are kin.” That should be the
message of our President.

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

BillingsgateIsland once comprised fifty acres and was home to thirty homes,
a school and a lighthouse. The island was part of a chain off Wellfleet on Massachusetts’ Cape Cod.
In the early 1940s, BillingsgateIsland, like Atlantis
before it, disappeared under the sea. In 1872, erosion was first noticed. By
1912, the island’s residents had left and the lighthouse abandoned. Today it is
but a sandbar at low tide. Its sinking beneath the waves was never thought of
as a “man-caused” disaster; it was seen as a manifestation of the power of
“Mother Nature.”

Thousands
of representatives from 190 nations descended on Lima,
Peru over the weekend for
the 20th “Conference of Parties” to discuss measures that UN
negotiators hope will lead to a legally enforceable global climate pact in Paris next year. The goal
of this UN sponsored meeting is to keep global temperatures within 2°
Centigrade (3.6° Fahrenheit) of the pre-Industrial period. To achieve that end,
all fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – would have to be phased out by 2050. In
many respects, the gathering is reminiscent of Bill Murray’s “Ground Hog Day,”
except for the costs and the fact it dispels more hot air and other waste
products into the biosphere.

No
one but an idiot would claim that man has had no effect on climate. But, also,
no one but a numbskull would say that natural factors like continental drift,
volcanoes, ocean currents and the earth’s tilt have had no impact. Thus, we should
be able to place “climate deniers” and the most mulish of climate-change
advocates – like, for example, the New York Times and Al Gore – outside
the room, so that an intelligent conversation and debate can be had within.
Unfortunately, the decibels of the discourse on this subject have risen to such
levels that there are very few left to quietly and civilly discuss climate
change and to debate what actions man should take to limit emissions, but also
to prepare for a changing future. In his 2007 classic, Cool It, Bjorn
Lomborg made the same point: He asked: “Why [has] the debate over climate
change stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent?”

The
unknown in the equation has always been: How much of the change in climate is
due to man and how much is due to nature? What about storms, droughts, floods
and fires? Have their frequency increased? Has man been responsible? The truth
is no one knows. Words like “most” or “a lot” should not satisfy. We should
strive to live in a cleaner environment – and history suggests that that is the
natural tendency of man, as he becomes wealthier. But we must also be prepared
to adapt to a climate that can change regardless of our efforts to control
emissions. A storm destroyed the Mongol fleet in the Sea
of Japan in 1274. Another one dumped several feet of snow on New York City in the
“Blizzard of ‘88” – 1888 that was. Katrina slammed into New Orleans in late August 2005. Was the
fault man’s, God’s, nature’s, or some combination of all three? Climate has
changed over the millennia; it will do so in the future, no matter the steps we
take today or tomorrow. Coral Davenport,
writing about the UN negotiators in the New York Times, noted: “Without
a deal, they say, the world couldeventually become uninhabitable for humans”
(Emphasis mine). I retort: If man does not adapt, he is doomed.

Whatever
our differences, there are things we do know and about which we should all
agree. We know that climate and the Earth are not static. Growing up in New Hampshire in the
late 1940s and early 1950s, a common adage: “If you don’t like the weather,
wait five minutes!” We also know that man, as a species, blossomed after the
Industrial Revolution. It also does not escape observers that the most fervent defenders
of climate change are those nations that are the richest, and within those
nations, individuals who are the wealthiest. We have ours; now people in China, Africa
other developing nations, and the poor within our own borders want theirs.
Extremists, whether in the U.S.
or elsewhere in the developed world seemingly ignore the benefits that fossil
fuels provided. We are far richer in comforts than anything our grandparents
could have imagined, and a good part of the reason has been the abundance of
cheap fossil fuels. It is why the Chinese did not “agree” to anything in their
recent meeting with Mr. Obama, so widely touted by the liberal media. They are
not stupid. They said they “intended” to cap emissions “around” 2030. They did
not say they would.

The
single most important consequence of the Industrial Revolution was the
extension of life. Between the time of Christ and the year 1800, Earth’s
population tripled, reaching one billion. It only took 160 years to reach three
billion. And, if Pew Research is right, it will take less than 90 years to
triple again. When one looks at a chart of the Earth’s population, the line
appears almost flat until 1800 when it moves up exponentially. The reason: the
Industrial Revolution. That Revolution raised standards of living for millions.
It allowed us to travel and communicate far more cheaply. The coal and oil that
were produced and converted to energy allowed manufacturers to build better
housing, produce cheaper clothing and provide more abundant food items, all at
lower prices. It extended lives. Yet in parts of Africa,
the situation remains dire. A woman born in Sierra
Leone in 2004 can expect to live to be 36; a man born in Zimbabwe, in
the same year, might reach 38.

There
were (and are), of course, downsides to industrial development. Life is a
balance between good and bad. Many of the jobs created by the Industrial
Revolution were monotonous, dangerous and involved very long hours. In early
days, they incorporated child labor. As in all of life’s endeavors, not all
fared equally. Fossil fuels used to generate power to operate factories did
release greenhouse gasses. Nevertheless, apart from a few nuts, no one wants to
return to life in the 18th Century. Additionally, we must keep in
mind that, while carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is also a necessity for
the metabolism of plant life, through the process of photosynthesis.

In
that regard, when one looks at photographs taken in the last quarter of the 19th
Century of New England, one of the most
notable features is the absence of trees. Forests were denuded for fuel. Today,
flying from New York to Boston, one marvels at the extent of the
woods along one of our most densely populated corridors, a visual manifestation
of nature’s resurgence and of the need for greater amounts of carbon dioxide.
As societies become wealthier, things inevitably happen regarding the
environment: Emissions become reduced; rivers, oceans and streams become
cleaner, and better land management allows for re-forestation. It is economic
growth that should be our focus.

I
am not against gatherings such as the one in Peru. It is always better to talk
than to not. But I am against hyperbole born of hypocrisy. It is not only the
earth’s temperatures that need cooling; it is the rhetoric of the participants
and the media that covers them.

Thursday, December 4, 2014

In
speeches before the European Parliament and the Council of Europe a week ago,
the Pope (the first non-European Pope) struck a chord among many when he spoke
of feelings of angst that have descended on Europe. A sense of decline is what
many seem to feel – that the world is no longer Eurocentric, that the future is
Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The Pope spoke of the negative aspects of secularization and the lack of
spirituality. Nevertheless, he was not negative on the prospects for Europe. He criticized what he called the aloofness of the
elites and the institutions they have created that are perceived as insensitive
to individuals. He asked for a return to those values of faith, human dignity
and fundamental rights that have historically characterized Europe,
but which now seem to be waning.

The
ghosts of the first half of the 20th Century pervade the thinking of
some in Europe today. As well, Europe is experiencing an unwelcome infusion of Islamists
and the segregation they bring, and the continuing consequences of the deepest
recession since the Great Depression. The ghosts cause one to recall the
nationalistic competitiveness in arms, goods and empires that led to the Great
War that killed almost 30 million people between 1914 and 1918, of the
unrealistic reparations made on Germany that were in part responsible for that
country’s hyperinflation in the 1920s, rearmament in the 1930s and their desire
for revenge. Those, along with the Depression, were factors leading to the
Second World War. The recent increase in Islamists has given rise to xenophobia,
while the effect of the slow recovery has provided a sense of unfairness
captured by Thomas Piketty.

In
emerging from the destruction of World War II, Europe embarked on the idea of a
unified Europe, with democracies embedded in social welfare programs, while
leaving the cost and burden for defense to NATO, which meant that Europe’s defense
became the responsibility of the United States. Social welfare meant
reduced work hours and increased benefits, which functioned as long as the
numbers of young expanded at a rate greater than the elderly. However, self-centeredness,
later marriages, smaller families and better healthcare gave rise to an aging
population, with the elderly becoming the fastest growing sector. A shrinking
population has meant higher costs on fewer people, which could only be paid for
with more debt and/or higher taxes. In turn, that has meant the private economy
has become a smaller part of the continent’s GDP, ergo slower economic growth –
a noose that gradually cuts off circulation.

But
nothing stays the same, including predictions about the future. Europe is Exhibit A. Its political landscape is changing.
Austerity measures mandated by the European Union (EU) and the necessity that
wealthy countries bailout needy ones and the requirement that needy countries
adhere to rules imposed by Brussels
are giving rise to anti-establishment political parties that reflect frustration
with traditional, conventional ones. In the Netherlands, the Party for Freedom
(Geert Wilder’s Party that opposes bailing out its promiscuous neighbors) is
now that Country’s largest party. In Spain, Podemos (a Left-leaning
party, established earlier this year) is currently the largest party in the
country. Podemos wants Spain
to continue receiving subsidies, but they “oppose the dominating EU politics…” The
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) opposes EU membership, and it is
gaining strength. The Front National Party of Marine Le Pen, another anti-EU
party became France’s
largest party after last May’s elections. Alternative for Germany (AfD)
was established last year to oppose eurozone bailouts. According to one report,
the AfD “is shaking up politics with astonishing wins in recent state
elections.” Centrists are losing control of their countries because of policies
they have advocated, like statism, elitism and multiculturalism. The latter may
be ideal in theory, but too often is a curse in practice.

However,
Europe cannot be ignored. The EU, with about
7% of the world’s population, contributes about 23% of its GDP. The continent’s
history is one of enlightenment. Greece
was the birthplace of Western civilization; Rome was where Christianity found its first
home. Europe was home to the Reformation and
the Renaissance. It is a diverse place. There are forty-five countries in Europe and perhaps as many as 230 languages and dialects,
twenty-three in the twenty-seven countries that comprise the EU. Because of the
proximity of their neighbors, most Europeans speak more than one language, but
the singularity in culture, laws and language that have bound Americans
together for over two hundred years are absent in Europe.

In
spite of that handicap, the concept of a United States of Europe – an idea
first mentioned by Winston Churchill in a 1930 speech entitled “A United States
of Europe” – remains a goal, albeit illusive. Nationalism was largely
responsible for the wars that devastated the continent in the first half of the
last century. The progress toward integration is slow and laborious, as it
should be, but it is important to not lose sight of that goal. In my opinion, multiculturalism
(no matter how well intentioned) has been the most significant cause of today’s
schism between nations and cultures; but also responsible has been the attempt
to put monetary union ahead of political union.

It
is not just political union that must be the goal; it is an emphasis on individual
freedom. People should be free to write and speak out, which they are, but also
to invest and profit from their ideas. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship
embedded in capitalism that would allow the continent to flourish. Dependency
on the state destroys the vitality that breeds success and economic growth.
When Churchill spoke, he was thinking in terms of federalism, not a
supranational government.

Amidst
these feelings of Weltschmerz, it was interesting to read Sarah Gordon’s column
in last Friday’s Financial Times. She wrote of multinationals flush with
cash, and improvements in corporate liquidity among smaller companies. Mario
Draghi has introduced quantitative easing. Lower interest rates have eased
concerns regarding refinancing. Oil prices are down 40%; the Euro has fallen 10%
versus the dollar in the past six months. Falling commodity prices, a lower
Euro and low interest rates are a blessing to European manufacturers.

Is
Europe on the mend? I don’t know. The future,
which is never clear, may well belong to Asia, Africa and the Americas. But
the ingredients for repair are there. The evolving political scene could force
changes that toss overboard old restrictive regulations and release the
youthful vigor that comes with individual freedom and creativity. While no one can foresee the future, it is
true that when making predictions we tend to extrapolate our most recent
experiences. The news has been mostly of discord and unhappiness; so it is
unsurprising that European equity markets reflect those concerns. But we must
be careful less we let history exert too much influence on how the future might
unfold. It is out of ashes that Phoenixes rise.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

A
benefit of writing this piece is that it provides an opportunity for
remembrance on how much of note transpires in a mere thirty or thirty-one days.
This past November was no different.

The
most important event of the month was the sweeping Republican victory during
the midterm elections. They will now control the Senate and will have the
largest majority in the House since 1930. Outside of Washington, Republicans added to their gubernatorial
and legislative majorities.

The
Grand Jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson consumed mountains of
press. It also generated outrage among those fired up by the Reverend Al
Sharpton and others who saw the lack of an indictment as the furtherance of
racial injustice. The consequences included demonstrations and protests that
turned violent and destroyed property, mostly of those who had scrimped and
saved to open their stores, many of whom are minorities. Nevertheless, my guess
is that Ferguson
will be only a footnote when the history of this era is written. It wasn’t
injustice that resulted from the Grand Jury’s decision; it was justice that did
not conform to the preconceptions of those who had tried Officer Darren Wilson
in the media. So, like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and his death will
disappear from memory, a tragic and unfortunate victim of those who look for
racism at every opportunity.

In
other news, the President issued an Executive Order granting amnesty to
millions of aliens who arrived here illegally from Mexico
and Central America. The President has dared
Republicans to challenge him by denying confirmations, cutting off funding or
shutting down government – a challenge he expects to (and probably will) win.
Apparently, breaking the law is okay if you can get away with it, just as
upholding only the laws he finds convenient is okay with our President. What an
example to set for our youth, especially those African-Americans who saw in the
2008 and 2012 elections the ultimate fulfillment of the Civil Rights movement!

With
his poll numbers in the toilet, Mr. Obama is anxious to get good news wherever
he can. He signed an agreement with China,
which commits that country to do nothing for the next ten years, while imposing
burdens on U.S.
businesses and taxpayers. It reminds me of the promises made by royalty to
their subjects of “air pudding with wind sauce.” John Kerry failed to strike a
deal with Iran; so that
country continues to barrel toward nuclear capability, which assuredly will
create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
North Korea’s “supreme
leader” Kim Jong-un had the temerity to condemn the U.S. for human rights violations!
Putin persists pugnaciously.

Elsewhere
at home, Jonathon Gruber provided an inside peek as to how the Left truly
considers their subjects. One result of the midterm elections was the lopping
off the head of the hapless Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Mr. Hagel, a
former Senator and a Republican, did have disagreements with the Administration
as to troop levels in Iraq,
strategies regarding ISIS, and the closing of
GITMO. He added fuel to the fire when, in an interview last month with Charlie
Rose, he said that budget cuts are threatening America’s military capability. Mr.
Obama is now searching for his fourth Defense Secretary. Amazon and Hachette
settled their dispute. While the press didn’t appear to declare either one the
winner, the market anointed Amazon with an 18% increase in the shares of its
stock price. The New York Times reported that the Reverend Al Sharpton
owes more than $4.7 million, including $3.0 million in federal income taxes. Yet
he continues to flaunt before cameras and hog microphones. Were the rest of us
to act like Mr. Sharpton, we would be in jail.

The
mood in Europe is sour. One consequence of
difficult economic times has been the rise in xenophobia and an increase in nationalism
– portents that remind one of the first half of the 20th Century. Mario
Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, warned of deflation, so has introduced
quantitative easing. Academics suggest the continent has lost its competitive
advantage. Even Pope Francis cautions that Europe
has become like “a grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant.” (The latter
admonition, I found offensive, as I am married to a grandmother who, while she
may not be fertile, is certainly vibrant!)

However
Sarah Gordon, writing in Friday’s Financial Times, takes a more upbeat
view. She notes that European multinationals are flush with cash. The Moody’s
Liquidity Stress Index, which falls when liquidity improves, dropped to an
all-time low in August. The leveraged loan market has returned to pre-crisis
levels and deal volume is three times what it was a year ago. Brent crude
prices are 37% below their peak levels and the Euro has fallen 4% from its
March levels. Adding to this rosier view of Europe
was, in my opinion, the month’s most momentous event – the European Space
Agency’s landing of a vehicle on a comet. It was an incredible challenge,
successfully completed – the chasing of an elusive, small object for ten years
and over 300 million miles. It made me feel as a starry-eyed child before
something incomprehensible, like when I first visited the Boston Museum of
Science, or when I look up at the night sky and see the Big Dipper and marvel
at who it was that noted that the North Star never moved, so could be a guide
in navigation at sea.

There
was, of course, much more during the month – some good, some bad and some just
strange. The latter would include the announcement that Charles Manson received
a marriage license from the State of California
where he is incarcerated. Manson was convicted forty-three years ago for the
brutal murder of Sharon Tate and six others. Beards are returning to BrighamYoungUniversity,
which seems right as Brigham Young is always portrayed as hirsute. The town of Westminster, Massachusetts
passed an ordinance banning the sale of tobacco. The decision suggests that it
is not just Big Brother who is watching over us, but it is also “Big Mama,”
“Big Papa” and “Big Sis.” The ordinance is being challenged, as it should be.
After all, Winston Churchill, according to a book by Boris Johnson, smoked an
estimated 250,000 Cuban cigars in his lifetime. He died two months past his 90th
birthday! That reminds me of one of November’s highlights – last month
Riverhead Books published the U.S.
edition of Johnson’s The Churchill Factor: How One Man Made History. Boris
Johnson is the Mayor of London and a man many believe will be a future Prime
Minister of England. It is a book all should read. It is beautifully written,
fact and fun-filled by a man empathetic to Churchill and the challenges he
faced. The fact Boris Johnson quotes Wodehouse is an added bonus, in my
opinion.

On
the macabre side, Boko Haram sent a suicide bomber into a NigerianSchool
where he killed 48 students. With all the media’s attention now focused on ISIS, it should not be forgotten that, despite the
hashtag messages from First Lady Michelle Obama and others about freeing “our
girls,” most of the school girls kidnapped seven months ago have not been
released. (A few escaped.) By this time they are dead, concubines or are
serving as slaves, among the estimated 36 million slaves in the world today.
While we get hung up on names, Islamic extremism comes in many forms, all of
which represent risks to the civilized world.

Financial
markets were dominated by the continuing collapse in crude oil prices. West
Texas Intermediate fell 18% during the month. At the month’s meeting of OPEC,
the decision was made to keep producing, placing responsibility for the price decline
on increased U.S.
production. The Russian Ruble hurt both by the decline in crude oil prices and
by the Machiavellian machinations of Vladimir Putin, fell 10% versus the U.S.
Dollar. U.S.
stocks fared well, with the S&P 500 rising 2.5%. In contradiction, given the
similarity of their risk profiles to stocks, High Yield bonds continued to
decline, with the FINRA-Bloomberg High Yield Index losing 63 basis points. The
yield on that Index is now almost 100 basis points above where it was at
midyear. The Ten-year Treasury rose in price, with the yield falling from 2.34%
to 2.19%. Gold and silver were higher, while the price of copper, an indicator
of global economic acitivity, was lower.

While
the New York Giant’s record this year is dismal, their rookie wide receiver,
Odell Beckham, Jr made what some are calling “the play of the year,” or “the
best catch ever.” While heavily covered, he single-handedly caught a touchdown
pass, with his upper body almost parallel to the ground – an incredible display
of athleticism!

Death
took Marion Barry, former long time Mayor of Washington, DC. Mayor Barry, a
charismatic leader and a longtime presence in Washington. He was also quite controversial.
He served six months in jail for drug possession; yet was reelected for a
fourth term in 1994. He once characterized the demon he (like many of us)
faced: “There is a constant battle between the Devil, which is flesh, and the
spirit, which is God.” Mike Nichols died
at the age of 83. He arrived in the United States
at age seven in 1939, chased out of Hitler’s Germany. By 1960 he had teamed up
with Elaine May for their eponymous Broadway satirical show. Fifty-two years
later he directed Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Death of a Salesman.” P.D. James, creator
of Adam Dalgliesh and one of England’s
great mystery writers, died at age 94.

There
were anniversaries of note. Twenty-five years ago, on November 9, the Berlin
Wall came down, marking the end of the Cold War. One hundred and forty years
ago, November 30, Winston Spencer Churchill was born at BlenheimPalace
to the somewhat nutty Randolph Churchill and his beautiful American wife, Jenny
Jerome. Winston Churchill stands alone among the colossi of the 20th
Century’s first half.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

The
waiting is over. It is hard to imagine a jury with a more difficult task than
that had by the twelve people on the St. Louis County Grand Jury who decided
Monday evening not to indict Ferguson
police officer, Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown last August. Over
twenty-five days, the Grand Jury had heard more than seventy hours of testimony
from sixty witnesses. They considered five possible charges, ranging from first
degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. They spent two days deliberating the
charges. They were not sequestered so were fully aware of the momentous nature
of their decision. They had to withstand extraordinary political pressure, both
direct and implied. The easy way out would have been to indict and pass on the
job of determining guilt or innocence to a trial jury. But they adhered to
their responsibility of sifting through all the information and material and
decided that there was not enough evidence for a court case to go forward.

Following
the announcement of the jury’s decision, President Obama said that the decision
of the Grand Jury should be respected, as they are the only ones who have heard
and seen all the evidence. He was right. (I just wish he had spoken the same
way back in August.) Mr. Obama quoted a letter from Mr. Brown’s father who
called for peaceful demonstrations. (Throughout this episode, Mr. Brown senior
has been the one adult in the room.) Unfortunately Mr. Obama’s and Mr. Brown’s
words were not heeded by those in Ferguson.
Riots broke out. Shots were fired. A dozen buildings were burned. Cars were burned
and flipped.

It
was obvious that the police in Ferguson
decided not to protect the property of those whose stores were looted and
destroyed, and whose cars were damaged. They attempted to keep some semblance
of order, but apparently were more concerned about the backlash from the media
and the black community, which may have been wise. But sadly, that property
destruction reflects what Matthew Arnold would have called our experimenting
with “low culture,” the doing as one likes without regard to one’s community.
Disrespect for others characterizes today’s society.

History
tells us we should always be fearful of government that uses force unlawfully
and capriciously. African-Americans feel targeted, in part because of history,
but also because crime and murder are more common to them than others. Facts
support their fears. The death rate for blacks in inner cities is ten times
that of whites. According to the FBI, there were 12,664 murders in the U.S. in 2011,
of which 6,329 were blacks. But 90% of those killings were black on black.

The
focus of black leaders should not be on revenge; instead they should ask, why?
Why is there so much hatred? How can that energy be redirected toward
productive purposes? What can be done to improve schools and provide more and better
jobs? What about the social changes in our culture? Have declines in two-parent
families and increases in unwed motherhood played roles? (In 1950, 9% of black
families with children were headed by a single parent. Today, over 70% of black
children are born to unwed mothers.)

While
the Civil Rights movement made great strides in furthering the causes of
African-Americans, an unintended and unfortunate consequence was the creation
of a sense of victimhood, and from that, entitlement. Too many blacks see
themselves as victims, not in control of their own destiny. Such feelings are
demeaning and tend to limit opportunities and self-respect. It is true that
many blacks see themselves as victims because vestiges of discrimination still
exist, but political leaders have promoted this sense, as they push the concept
of hyphenated Americans. Leaders should attempt to help people help themselves,
by emphasizing self-reliance and dependency on one another, rather than
government. They should focus on uniting, not dividing.

Police
are necessary in any society that functions under the rule of law; it is not an
easy job. A black-separatist group has offered a $5,000 bounty for the location
of Officer Wilson. His life has been indelibly altered. Police work is
dangerous. According to FBI statistics 48 of the 780,000 officers in the U.S. were
killed in 2012 – a rate 50% higher than for the general population. There is no
question that there are rogue cops, but the vast majority work at a difficult
task – maintaining order, while confronting risk – while knowing they work for
the people they police.

More
than anything, it has been the culture of division that has rent places like Ferguson. People like the
Reverend Al Sharpton make a living by inciting people to act against their and
society’s best interest. He makes them dependent on him. He thrives on their
dependency. If there is a camera, Mr. Sharpton will find it. If there is a
microphone, he will stand before it.

Peaceful
protests are an indelible part of our heritage, and have roots with the likes
of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King. But encouraging looting and
destruction and demanding justice when justice has already been done only
raises expectations with little hope of satisfaction. In fact, it was worse
than that. The damage inflicted, with buildings and cars burned, was to their
own city, their own people. Such destruction will worsen their lives. Stores
will not reopen, and those that are still standing will raise prices to
compensate for the higher costs of operating in “dangerous” neighborhoods.

While
I thought Attorney General Eric Holder’s involving himself in the crisis last
summer was an overreach, the fact he did serves to make more meaningful the
findings of the Grand Jury. There is no question that St. LouisCounty
prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch has been under a microscope, as have been the
jurors. If anyone erred in this case, it would have been in favor of finding Darren
Wilson somehow criminally responsible. The fact they did not only makes their
decision seem truer.

There
are many lessons to be learned from Ferguson.
The most important one is that our system of justice works. The 5th
Amendment of the Constitution reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury…” A second lesson is that the plight of young, poor, unemployed
African-Americans must be addressed. Such efforts must begin in the schools and
lead to the workplace. State and federal rules and regulations should promote
businesses, the fountains of jobs. The third lesson involves addressing our
culture, to be one that promotes respect both of the self variety, as well as
for the other person – a culture that promotes unity, not division. Charlatans
like Mr. Sharpton should return to New
York.